Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Eagle

Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore Tells Us Senate There Is "no Proof" Humans Cause Climate Change

Recommended Posts

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has angered environmentalist groups after saying climate change is "not caused by humans" and there is "no scientific proof" to back global warming alarmism.

The Canadian ecologist told US lawmakers there is "little correlation" to support a "direct causal relationship" between CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures.

"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," he told a US Senate Committee "If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists."

He also criticised the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for claiming "it is extremely likely" that human activity is the "dominant cause" for global warning, noting that "extremely likely" is not a scientific term.

Moore warned the statistics presented by the IPCC are not the result of mathematical calculations or statistical analysis, and may have been "invented" to support the IPCC's "expert judgement".

The Greenpeace co-founder argued the increase in atmospheric temperature on the earth's surface goes back the Ice Age when C02 was "10 times higher than today, yet human life flourished" at this time.

He added: "I realise that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today.

"However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species."

Moore co-founded the environmental activist group as PhD student in ecology in 1971.He left Greenpeace in 1986 after the group became more interested in "politics" than science.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/greenpeace-cofounder-patrick-moore-tells-us-senate-there-is-no-proof-humans-cause-climate-change-9159627.html

Even a former Greenpeace founder can see that MMGW is a politically motivated scam and yet we still have lemmings (even on HPC where people really should know better) that believe in what politicians and bought 'scientists' tell them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Greenpeace co-founder argued the increase in atmospheric temperature on the earth's surface goes back the Ice Age when C02 was "10 times higher than today, yet human life flourished" at this time.
Thanks to human nature, people like this will be shouted down and swept under the carpet by an unstoppable wave of disapproval. Once public opinion has chosen a side, you better get out the way of it.

If we're talking about "probabilities" then it's highly probable Moore will be proved right. His statement is just very logical as opposed to emotional. Unfortunately for him it will take a long time for history to prove his view. And impatient humans aren't interested in waiting a 100 years for an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article....

Moore co-founded the environmental activist group as a PhD student in ecology in 1971. He left Greenpeace in 1986 after the group became more interested in "politics" than science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to human nature, people like this will be shouted down and swept under the carpet by an unstoppable wave of disapproval. Once public opinion has chosen a side, you better get out the way of it.

Nah, we'll carefully examine the paper that he has published demonstrating that there is no greenhouse effect, in a full and rigorous scientific debate.

He has written this paper, I assume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, we'll carefully examine the paper that he has published demonstrating that there is no greenhouse effect, in a full and rigorous scientific debate.

He has written this paper, I assume.

It's a surprising opinion given the ivy league statistical analysis of the data that came out a few years ago with unequivocal support for AGW

Having said that his 2nd opinion, that the upshot of increased temperatures might not be so bad, has more weight, and he doesn't need to write the papers, they're already in print, just not synthesised under the IPCC publishing umbrella

Edit: and he presaged the debate more than a decade ago, in a review journal

[PDF] Environmentalism for the Twenty-first Century

P Moore - Institute of Public Affairs Review, 2000 - ipa.org.au

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   217 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.